August 16, 2010

Abandoning high-rise plans, Fourth Presbyterian ready to unveil design for a five-story addition to its historic North Michigan Avenue church

After two aldermen rejected its controversial plans for a lucrative high-rise behind its Michigan Avenue sanctuary, one of the city’s most affluent Protestant congregations on Tuesday will unveil a design for a dramatically scaled-down addition.

Fourth Presbyterian Church, which has occupied its neo-Gothic church at 866 N. Michigan Ave. since 1914, had long planned to sell air space over the property for about $25 million to pay for expansion and renovation, and to build a community center in a nearby public housing project.

Instead, the historic house of worship on the north end of the Magnificent Mile will be seeking city approval for a five-story addition that would house classrooms, a day school, a library, a dining facility, multi-purpose spaces, a 350-person chapel and a two-story galleria linking it to the original building.

The most significant feature, however, may be what’s not planned for the addition. Foundations that would allow for a future high-rise expansion on top of the building are not part of the proposal, according to the addition’s architects, the Chicago office of Gensler.

As a result, the church appears to be forgoing millions of dollars in future revenue, Chicago zoning lawyer Reuben Hedlund said.

Church leaders say they have little choice.

“We had a plan which would have allowed us to realize significant funds to continue to develop our growing ministry,” said Calum MacLeod, Fourth Presbyterian’s executive associate pastor. “That never got traction with the neighbors or the alderman.”

Unlike the church’s previous plans—one for a 700-foot condo tower (left) that was turned down by former 42nd Ward Ald. Burton Natarus; the other for a high-end hotel that was opposed by current alderman Brendan Reilly—the addition would not require major zoning changes.

Reilly will host a 6 p.m. public meeting Tuesday at Fourth Presbyterian in conjunction with the church and the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents, a local planning group.

“I’m withholding judgment until we get this thing aired out,” Reilly said, “but generally from what I’ve seen, it’s a far more appropriate proposal for this location.”

According to Fourth Presbyterian officials, the addition’s construction cost would be about $34 million, which includes the demolition of three adjoining low-rise buildings that the church owns and occupies. The target completion date is 2012—100 years after the church laid the cornerstone for its present home.

The architects call for a contemporary design that complements rather than mimics the church’s historic buildings, which were designed by Ralph Adams Cram and Howard Van Doren Shaw.

The addition would be covered in weathered copper panels and glass. It promises to let more natural light into the sanctuary’s west-facing stained glass windows, which are now partly blocked by existing buildings.

“It may be even better than what’s there now,” said Jim Peters, president of Landmarks Illinois, a statewide advocacy group.

Besides the city, the Fourth Presbyterian congregation will also need to give the project its assent. A vote is expected in mid-September, MacLeod said.

The addition is expected to provide more space for the church’s existing outreach programs, such as its one-on-one tutoring program.

Posted at 06:24:03 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Who is the architect doing the addition? Seems strange not to include this info.

For once, couldn't you have said "one of the city's most active" or "one of the city's most vibrant" congregations rather than "one of the city's most affluent"? The word "affluent" sets people on edge, both congregants and community.

BK: Sorry, but distinguishing characteristics are distinguishing characteristics. The congregants and much of the Near North Side community are affluent. I'm not going to ignore that. We're in the reality business, even if it sets you on edge.

I am excited to hear that the expansion will be taking place. I am a mentor/tutor at Fourth Pres and we work in cramped quarters with our students and, at times, their learning can be hindered. I can imagine the students who attend school there feel the effects of the confined spaces as well. It will be nice to have an improved setting for learning. I do, however, wish that the new design was more in line with the beautiful historic facade of the church. It's always commented upon and marveled at by Chicago visitors and it would be a shame for a more modern add on to detract from the beauty.

UGLY! Looks as bad as that new glass thing on South Michigan Avenue. Too bad that the church caved to Burt Natarus and his friends in 57 East Delaware who were only concerned about losing their views, even though they blocked other's views when they built. I guess that uit pays to belong to the same club. NIMBYs

Its sad that NIMBY outrage killed the tower project several years back. While the design was nothing outstanding, its silly to think that a 50-some story tower is somehow out of place along on of the central arteries of one of the largest and densest central business districts on Earth.

Naturus ofcourse had to bow under the pressure of his constituents. Overall pro-development, he had to shoot down at least one or two projects as publicity stunts in a failed attempt to retain some favor among voters with fears of increased traffic, canyonization, a more vibrant street scape, and other such traits of a large and dynamic city.

These people, along with Reilly, should take the 7:46 BNSF back to Naperville.

Looks like a great design. Hope they are able to raise the money. The Suntimes says the cost is $48 mill so $34 mill sounds a lot better. I am not a member but very admiring of the way this congregation is involved in the urban community and "gives back."

BK: The difference in cost may be construction cost versus overall project cost.

The downturn in the economy also had a lot to do with the decision to abandon the high-rise. Unfortunately, the revenue from selling the air rights would have allowed for an expansion in the church's ministry at a time of unprecedented need. It is a zero sum proposition, the membership will now pay for the expansion with money that would have been received from the developers. It could have been used to help poor and disadvantaged people - one of the church's areas of focus. While you could characterize the church as affluent, it would be more accurate to note that some of the members are affluent while others are not. Further, Fourth Presbyterian has a solid record of using its many resources to help those in need. The church building is architecturally significant but it is not palatial by any means.

This project looks absolutely gorgeous based on what I can see from the posted renderings. The new building is elegant and serene. There are many green copper details on the old building that will be picked up by this new aged copper cladding. Good job Gensler.

Additional Thought: I really enjoy your work and read it, well, 'religiously', but are you not in the perception business with your architectural reviews being one of impression (albeit very learned)? I will stop reading if you believe your work is to be considered reality.

BK: Please do keep reading. By no means am I claiming that my conclusions are the end-all and be-all of architecture criticism. But facts are facts, and Fourth Pres is an affluent congregation. THAT's reality.

I can't believe a modern addition that does not respect or complement the existing structure is considered more appropriate than a high-rise in the background next to an existing high-rise. Proof that politics and money trumps taste and respect, once again!

I prefer a tall skyscraper. Tall buildings make our city look amazing. The land in that area is incredibly valuable so it makes sense to build up. Another low-rise facility for religion seems like an incredible waste of space. I'll be at the meeting tonight, so I can voice my opinion.

Happy they're not adding another tall monstrosity to Michigan Ave. It's amusing (albeit not in the good way) when people complain about the 'fear' of canyonization - as if it weren't real and something to be guarded against. NYC? No thanks.

“I’m withholding judgment until we get this thing aired out,” Reilly said, “but generally from what I’ve seen, it’s a far more appropriate proposal for this location.”

How can a 5 story box be more appropriate than a high rise in the heart of our City??!! Have any of these idiots in office ever heard of a thing called urban density? Someone needs to explain to them this is exactly the reason why mass transit in this city struggles, poor urban planning by our moronic political leadership.

Looks like the anti-green NIMBYs got their way. A tall, thin building would have been very environmentally-friendly with sound land-use planning instead of spreading out. We need more people living close to public transit and being able to walk conveniently. It is dangerous to plan a global city allowing some pandering aldermen to have so much zoning power. High-density and tall buildings are the greenest buildings as opposed to spreading out and having to drive everywhere. They also help support more retail, culture and sidewalk activity. It is really too bad that the backward-looking ideas won out. Aldermen should help enlighten about sound urban planning not dumb it down. Also, the the Hancock Tower is a masterpiece and is very tall and thin and right across the street from the church. It did wonders for the area. Also, the common bricks of the buildings to the west are exposed to Michigan Avenue and would have been nicely covered. This mentality of stopping tall, thin buildings is so provincial as higher density is a growing movement around the world and so many people are getting on board but the NIMBYs killed it in this location. We need to put the focus, energy and community activism on good design and architecture not stopping development. We need to become more enlightened. The church also would have raised money for their programs. The high-rise was invented in Chicago and created one of the most beautiful and recognizable skylines in the world, let's celebrate it not stop it!

"It's amusing (albeit not in the good way) when people complain about the 'fear' of canyonization - as if it weren't real and something to be guarded against. NYC? No thanks."

You live in Chicago DUDE, home of the modern skyscraper. I always find it amusing (albeit not in a good way) when folks like you complain about large buildings being built in the heart of downtown Chicago, you know, one of the largest economies in the world. The same people complain when Michigan Ave gets shut down by Oprah or Transformers 3. If you want to live in some sleepy, FLAT town, there are literally a million other choices out there. Stop acting like Chicago is some small town where skyscrapers are out of place.

Now that that is out of the way, I love the design, both the low rise and the high rise. It's an absolute shame the high rise didn't get built, no doubt due to belly aching NIMBYs. Jane Freedom, kudos to you girl, you understand the point of a city far more than Ron does.

Has SOAR seen any project that the NIMBYs liked? Ever? And I thought this site is outside of Streeterville, so why are they sticking their negative noses into it? The high rise project was killed because of a neighborhood condo with friend's of Natarus who were afraid of losing their views, and the Church caved. So sad.

Meh. While the 5-story scheme is a minor victory for aesthetics and handsomer materials, it's too bad the opportunity wasn't taken to explore and expand on Chicago's now-oft-ignored vernacular tradition at this distinct site. Especially with all the tourists around there who've come to "see" Chicago... there will still be more visitors snapping photos of the church than the new building even when it's brand-spanking new.

I am no designer but as an average pedestrian who gets great enjoyment out of visual design, this plan is awful. When will modernism get away from the obsession with glass boxes? Let's move on with something uplifiting, innovative and pleasing to the senses. One more point, I agree with Mr. Kamin, this is an affluent congregation. No one said they weren't living out their creed.

The point is calling out the congregation as "affluent" has absolutely nothing to do with the criticism of the architecture and subtly suggests something deeper to the criticism beyond architecture.. Would Mr. Kamin be so brash as to call out the Saini Synagogue as wealthy or politically connected in a review? I think not. What it is it about 4th Pres that people feel the need to call it out as "exclusive"?

BK: First, I'd spell Sinai correctly, as in Chicago Sinai Congregation. Then, yes, I'd call it the affluent Chicago Sinai Congregation because it is affluent. Now can we move on to more important things?